The opening words of Mike Allen’s piece on Souter’s retirement:
Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s planned retirement touches off a fierce fight between the parties that could reinvigorate moping Republicans
Reader Interactions
73Comments
Comments are closed.
Ned R.
…to fight each other some more.
(Wait, it doesn’t continue like that?)
Bulworth
At least he called them “moping”. Heh.
blogenfreude
The GOP will throw the usual tantrum, then the nominee will get in with about 60 votes.
leo
Like the moping republicans (the half dozen or so who are left) need to be reinvigorated.
From what I’ve seen, it’s tranquilizers that they need.
GregB
Poor Mike, the reach arounds must be getting fewer and further between.
-G
dslak
This is good news for John McCain!
dmsilev
The GOP wouldn’t be happy unless President Obama nominated Sarah Palin.
-dms
MattF
Interesting that the content of the article doesn’t actually much support the lead sentence. The article is mostly about what Obama might do, and the sourced quote from a conservative is in the ‘alternative space-time continuum’ category.
Dennis-SGMM
This is irony on toast points: by opposing everything that Obama has proposed so far, often en bloc, the Republicans now have zero bargaining chips. That won’t prevent them from threatening to withhold their co-operation, calling for bi-partisanship or demanding a gesture of good will toward them. Tools. That GOP strategery really pays off, doesn’t it boys?
Xenos
Go ahead, feel those oats, boys… spread the word about a big damn fight coming up. Obama putting through a moderate, uncontroversial but unpalatable-to-conservatives pick will be easy.
I can just see the Goopers scrambling around under the net, hootin’ and hollerin’, and Obama will just step back behind the three point line and drop that sucker in, nothing but net… they won’t even be newsworthy any more.
os
blah blah blah, everything is a good sign for repubs. you think because they will be able to argue the same shit over and over and over means it is good for them? yawn
Punchy
“invigorate”? Does he mean wailing, bitching, FoxNews Screetching, and declaring EVERY SINGLE NOMINEE, NO MATTER WHO IT IS, the worstest, most partisan pick EVAH??
Hunter Gathers
I expect the GOP (specifically, known Texas moron ‘Big John’ Cornyn) to make complete asses out of themselves if the nod goes to a woman. I predict that said nominee will be called a ‘baby killer’ during the televised hearings. They’ll pitch a fit if the spot goes to anyone who isn’t to the right of Nino ‘I refer to myself in the third person’ Scalia.
Napoleon
I have said this before and I will say it again. Allen is one of the most nakedly pro-Republican partisan reporters in the non-Fox MSM.
Ted the Slacker
This is obviously great news for the Party of No. Really it is.
gregt
The media conventional wisdom has already come a long way towards reality when the *positive* spin for Republicans is “maybe they’ll stop moping!”
cleek
they actually have one huge chip: a nominee can’t even get out of the Judiciary committee without at least one minority vote.
guess who the best chance for that minority vote was ?
Dennis-SGMM
Have they called on Obama to meet with Congressional Republicans so that they can make known their wishes yet?
Lee from NC
So…it’s good news for Republicans that Specter defected, that Democrats are one meteor–>Coleman away from a supermajority, that Obama and a Democratic congress will appoint a Supreme Court justice, blah blah blah.
Will someone please ask these idiots, what exactly would you consider bad news for the Republicans?
JL
@Hunter Gathers: Wasn’t it the repubs who said that there should be no litmus test?
MikeJ
Didja catch Tapper’s hed? “White men need not apply.”
Aaron
Wendy Long . . . Fuck you. Anyone who calls the Supreme Court “liberal” has no idea what the term means, nor have they read relevant case law or judicial opinions. If you want to play politics, fine. But the idea that everything is a political game is bullshit.
John PM
@Hunter Gathers:
Agreed. A Latino woman would be even better, because then they could call her a “wet-back abortion machine.”
Republicans really are in “boy who cried wolf” territory now. Obama could literally nominate the Anti-Christ and Republicans would no longer be able to stop it.
Dork
I did not know this. For real? They can bottle up any choice just by voting no in unison? Well, voting no in unison is their specialty. Yowsers.
cleek
for real.
the rule:
the minority is: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn.
yay!
come on Huckleberry!
Hunter Gathers
@JL:
Only a crackhead takes republicans at thier word.
‘We didn’t torture” turned into “torture worked”.
It’s like a rapist saying “I did not rape that woman”, then 6 months later he says “Well, she was asking for it”.
Ned R.
Yeah, that twist is pretty interesting. (And all things depending that may well *be* a Specter/Souter connection there, ie the latter going “Hmm, well why not now?”)
Punchy
Fuckin hell. Uh…that’s a no, maybe, no, no, no, uh…no, HELL NO, and middle finger+fuck off+I hate you all no, respectively.
Only b/c Grassley’s from a blue state would I suspect he may bend….that said, he’s ginormously popular in Iowa, and could probably eat a fetus at a breakfast campaign rally and still get 78% of the votes.
Keith
This should also bolster John McCain’s presidential campaign quite a bit!
Hunter Gathers
@Punchy:
As long as the fetus is african-american or hispanic.
zmulls
Obama should/probably-will call Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch in for a chat. They will get some say in who gets picked. Clinton gave Hatch a say, as has been widely reported, and didn’t do too badly in getting progressive voices on the court.
Snark Based Reality
@Hunter Gathers:
More like “Well you got off on watching me do it so mission accomplished.”
Michael
Up or Down, bitches.
smiley
@John PM: A Hispanic, man or woman, would most likely be Catholic. That would mean 6 of 9 justices would be Catholic. Is that a good thing? I mean, after all, for most of it’s history it’s been all male protestant justices. Still, the five on there now vote pretty much as a block but I don’t know the role Catholicism plays in that. Just sayin…
Comrade Dread
I remember way back in time when the parties were still a little sane, that the most important thing in a Supreme Court nominee was their legal qualifications.
Now, we have the giant comedy theater whereby the opposition party pretends to be shocked (shocked!) that their rivals would nominate someone who tends to lean toward their ideology.
valdivia
Aside from the usual wingnut insanity I also I predict very soon some on the left will start complaining that Obama being a traitor he will not name a true progressive making him, once again, a sell out.
cleek
oh, believe me, that’s already started.
AkaDad
Even though most of the the current members of the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans, it’s clearly THE most Liberal court ever.
valdivia
@cleek:
see I am always late to the party ;-)
TCG
Get ready for a full dose of Orin Hatch unplugged.
Ol’ Orin considers this supreme court appointments his special realm.
John PM
@smiley:
I thought about the Catholic angle, but it seems to me that Republicans are also becoming more hostile to Catholics. Anyway, the thought is that nominating a person of Hispanic origin could create the situation where Republicans are once again venting their anger at Hispanics, which will drive them further away from the Republican Party.
Alan
Nothing better to highlight social con control over the GOP than a fight over appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
blogenfreude
@Aaron: From Wendy’s website:
You’d think someone who used to be a partner at a major law firm would “rigirously scrutinize” her website.
flounder
This news will surely send their crazy base to sidelines and help them lure moderates back to the party.
Rommie
I’m hoping it’s Granholm, because I’m a homer, because it would be a nice reward for 8 years of shit tacos from the national and state GOP, but mainly because the Republicans would attack her being from Communist Canada, and go international in self-burial. Expand the brand!
SGEW
I am concerned about Obama’s hypothetical SCOTUS nominee pick, and my concern, concentrated, will reveal a rational consternation.
But seriously! I iz srs commenter, and I have serious concerns!
Mind you, I am perfectly confident that Obama’s pick will be eminently qualified for the position, and I am sure that whoever it will be will wind up becoming a strong defender of key “liberal”[1] social positions (e.g., abortion, marriage equality, etc.), and will probably be a great voice for civil liberties, a living constitution, and (this will probably be the most contentious bit) transnationalism. [I elide here my other concerns about eminent domain, intellectual property, and executive power: willing to wait and see.]
However, Souter’s potential retirement raises a different issue for me: church and state. Souter has been the most consistent advocate for a secular state and a stricter reading of Jefferson’s “wall” than any other Justice in the last twenty years, and the bench is already on the razor’s edge on the issue. We’re only one vote [2] away from allowing Scalia to declare that the state can actively discriminate against atheists. [3]
I will be very surprised to see much daylight between any potential Obama nominee and Justice Souter on most legal positions [4], but I will also be very surprised if Obama nominates a strongly pro-secular (read: “anti-Christian”) nominee.
Thus my footnoted concern.
[1] These positions are not “liberal,” dammit all: they’re modern!
[2] I have been known to lift my face to the sky, shake my fists, and scream “Kennedyyyyyyyyy!” a la “Khaaaaan!” Screw Scalia; when Kennedy quits I will dance a little fucking jig, that lukewarm prevaricating spineless motherfucker.
[3] Okay, this may strike some as a kind of strong way of reading it, but that’s how I see it.
[4] N.B. Important Caveat: One cannot predict how nominees end up deciding cases ten years down the road. Remember – Nixon appointed the “conservative” Blackmun, and he wound up writing Roe v. Wade. Once you sit someone’s ass on that bench, ’till they be dead, some of them actually start thinking for themselves.
Jay C
@Hunter Gathers:
Shouldn’t that be “Nino ‘he refers to himself in the third person’ Scalia”??
@flounder:
Why? A SCOTUS nomination is a yea-or-nay situation for the voting Senators – doesn’t matter to them if they appeal to the “base” or “moderates” or Pastafarians; it’s still an up-or-down vote, so they’ll probably just use their free TV airtime to bluster and bloviate, vote “No”, and go back to fulminating again Kommisar Obamavich’s Islamonazifascios0c1alist reign-of-terror in fundraising ads. Besides, why would creatures ike Sens. Cornyn, Kyl or Inhofe even give sh*t about what Republican “moderates” think?
valdivia
@SGEW:
excellent point about church/state separation. I think a lot of people are so focused on abortion etc that they miss the big picture which you just referred to (the establishment clause cases are always fascinating to me).
Common Sense
@cleek:
Yeah Limbaugh is pimping this currently. “Thank god Specter left — he would’ve been that vote (ignoring Specter’s reliably conservative Judicial record — Anita Hill anyone?)”
He also seems somewhat meh about the prospect since Sen “Graham-nesty” is way too liberal and will obviously vote for whatever hippie pinko Obama shoves down our throats.
Corner Stone
@valdivia:
This is a kind of inoculation against Obama nominating a very non-progressive candidate.
I don’t expect Obama to nom a liberal, because Obama himself clearly is not one and probably wouldn’t see the utility in it, or the politics either.
However, when he comes back with some fucking choad that’s right/right of center because it’s the pick “he can get passed the Republicans” I don’t want to see anyone here defending it.
Although it’s inevitable.
ChrisS
That rule only seems to support a motion without debate.
Otherwise, that would be enormous veto power to a the minority.
r€nato
@dmsilev:
no, then they’d demand Bork.
Lost Option
Regarding comments that a single minority member can nix a nomination. That doesn’t sound right. Haven’t actually looked at the committe rules — but please note that at the end of the phrase, “If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate,…” there is the word “debate.”
Seems like this has to do with being able to fast-track without further ado, rather than requiring that at least one minority member approve moving nomination out of committee.
Xanthippas
Is that like how their united opposition to Obama is working out?
rea
Granholm has been a decent governor, but she’s a career prosecutor with a career prosecutor’s views on criminal justice issues.
The Swedish Chef
Bork! Bork! Bork!
Kirk Spencer
@cleek: OK, correct me if I’m wrong, but Specter isn’t yet a Democrat. He is a Republican by label, and will remain so unless/until elected as a Democrat in 2010.
He has not been – and again as far as I can tell can not be – removed from the committee assignments.
If I’m wrong I’m open to correction, of course.
Calouste
The Republicans will first start objecting the Obama nominee, and only after that come up with a reason to actually do so.
ricky
And what, pray tell, will it take to reinvigorate Mike Allen’s moping intellect?
liberal
@Aaron:
AFAICT the “liberal” members of the Court aren’t really liberal. Maybe somewhat left of center.
liberal
@zmulls:
I’m not quite sure I’d call them “progressive.”
Also, I like Ruth a lot, but she was kinda old when she was appointed.
Obama should nominate someone reasonably liberal, and young.
liberal
@valdivia:
I can understand the calculus that Obama faces, but why should Republican extreme-far-right nominees like Alito and Roberts get confirmed, yet nominees who are mildly left of center face so much uncertainty?
Really, it’s Congress which “sells out.”
liberal
@John PM:
Maybe, but Jindal’s Catholic.
liberal
@Corner Stone:
I don’t see that it’s inevitable. I think the likeliest disappointing pick would be a wishy-washy centrist.
sherifffruitfly
There’s nothing republicans like more than whining. This is an excellent opportunity for them.
Kirk Spencer
A little bit above this post I wondered if there was a roadblock to the Republican’s blockade in Specter being still a Republican. The answer is that I was mistaken.
The Senate Republican Conference can modify its rules – exception or amendment – that determine who is (and who stays) on committees, much less who is ranking member. So even if Specter is still ‘technically’ a Republican, they can move him off the Judiciary.
Brachiator
@SGEW:
I agree with you here and like your take on areas that you would like any potential Obama justice to be strong on.
But apart from basic qualifications and judicial temperament, everything else is pretty much a crap shoot. It’s interesting to note, for example, that Souter is perceived to be a reliable member of the liberal wing of the Court. But he was appointed by Bush I in the hopes of being reliably conservative. And the Washington Post re-ran an op-ed piece summarizing Souter’s first year on the bench, which included this gem:
I think that Souter grew as a justice during his term, and I particularly appreciate the opinions and dissents in which he deliberately took on and ably demolished Scalia’s pretense to be the Court’s intellectual leader.
One of Obama’s picks will have to take on this mantle.
But even more than being solidly “liberal” or strong on church v state issues, I think of an observation that Juan Williams made about Thurgood Marshall:
Ultimately, I want to see someone on the Court who is more than a technician of the law or a philosopher, but who realizes that sometimes the man or woman who is sitting on the Court is more than just a judge, but is the embodiment of justice, and that the people who come before the court are not just cases or causes, but human beings.
Corner Stone
@liberal:
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that when Obama picks a right/right of center nomination it will be *inevitable* that people here will defend the pick on some lame-ass “he had to do it this way”, or “this is the O-man showing how the game is played” or other orgasmic praise. Even though all facts in evidence will show that he most likely did not have to pick the right/right of center candidate but did anyway.
I am warming up the lotion on the offchance Obama actually does pick a strong candidate that is even slightly to the left of center. And if by some miracle he picks (and gets seated) someone that can even remotely be called progessive or liberal – well hell, I don’t know how to finish this sentence since that will never fucking happen.
gil mann
Time for a new “artists in our midst” thread, this time for psychics.
@Kirk: nah, I think it’s effective immediately.
SGEW
@Brachiator:
Someone agrees with you:
AnneLaurie
<blockquote>I’m hoping it’s Granholm, because I’m a homer, because it would be a nice reward for 8 years of shit tacos from the national and state GOP, but mainly because the Republicans would attack her being from Communist Canada, and go international in self-burial. Expand the brand!
I think the Repugs would prefer the “Gov. Granholm of Chrysler, bankrupt union-owned company leeching on the taxpayers’ unwilling generosity.”
If I had to bet (a store-bought cookie), I’d bet that Obama will find a qualified female Hispanic-American lawyer from an Evangelical (i.e., not-Catholic) family who’s on the record as supporting Roe v. Wade. Sure, it’s a very small pool, but that’s the Magical Unity President’s gift…
SFAW
… I’d bet that Obama will find a qualified female Hispanic-American lawyer …
I am hopeful that someone will tell the RNC or Limbaugh or similar that Osamabama is nominating noted Latina jurist Kay Melambes.
n69n
MIKE ALLEN: “I miss havin’ my head rubbed…”